View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Product Strategy DIBB |
|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification. | DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-120 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-2 h |
Participantsdifferent | 2-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning report |
Tagsno overlap | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
